Except ex-Catholics such as Toth and those who were fervently anti-Catholic.

St Alexis was fervently pro-Catholic. Read the scroll.

On that note:

Quote

I still remember the first time I read about St. Alexis back about 1993. I had recently started attending a Byzantine Catholic parish and discovered a series of pages on the Catholic Information Network that covered some of the early history of the Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA. Even though I had no thought then of entering Orthodoxy, I immediately had a feeling of indignation upon reading of how he (and other Eastern Catholics) were treated by the Latin Rite Bishops and clergy during that era.

As I discussed his story with other Byzantine Catholics after St. Alexis’ glorification in 1994, I discovered that some Byzantine Catholics were sympathetic to him and a few even obtained icons of him. Though these are a definite minority within Byzantine Catholicism, St. Alexis’ icon hangs in many Byzantine Catholic home icon corners and I’ve been told his icon even graces a few Byzantine Catholic parishes (though usually where it is not easily seen). I’ve even heard him commemorated once at a Byzantine Catholic service of Great Vespers.

On balance, however, I am of the opinion that the Archbishop was far more in the wrong, and over far more substantial matters, than was Father Toth. That said, I should also state that the Archbishop's errors should in no way have permitted Father Toth to justify to himself his apostasy to the Church]

http://www.cin.org/clash13.htmlWhat St. Alexis was "wrong" about is not specified. What is was wrong on was placing false hope in the Vatican. Nothing more.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 12:36:42 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Except ex-Catholics such as Toth and those who were fervently anti-Catholic.

St Alexis was fervently pro-Catholic. Read the scroll.

On that note:

Quote

I still remember the first time I read about St. Alexis back about 1993. I had recently started attending a Byzantine Catholic parish and discovered a series of pages on the Catholic Information Network that covered some of the early history of the Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA. Even though I had no thought then of entering Orthodoxy, I immediately had a feeling of indignation upon reading of how he (and other Eastern Catholics) were treated by the Latin Rite Bishops and clergy during that era.

As I discussed his story with other Byzantine Catholics after St. Alexis’ glorification in 1994, I discovered that some Byzantine Catholics were sympathetic to him and a few even obtained icons of him. Though these are a definite minority within Byzantine Catholicism, St. Alexis’ icon hangs in many Byzantine Catholic home icon corners and I’ve been told his icon even graces a few Byzantine Catholic parishes (though usually where it is not easily seen). I’ve even heard him commemorated once at a Byzantine Catholic service of Great Vespers.

On balance, however, I am of the opinion that the Archbishop was far more in the wrong, and over far more substantial matters, than was Father Toth. That said, I should also state that the Archbishop's errors should in no way have permitted Father Toth to justify to himself his apostasy to the Church]

http://www.cin.org/clash13.htmlWhat St. Alexis was "wrong" about is not specified. What is was wrong on was placing false hope in the Vatican. Nothing more.

Though these are a definite minority within Byzantine Catholicism, St. Alexis’ icon hangs in many Byzantine Catholic home icon corners.

A definite minority all right. I'd bet you a pierogi platter that next to none of them have last names ending in -sky, -ko, or -uk.

And how many American Greek Catholics and American Orthodox outside convert-land have icon corners? (Not that icon corners are bad. Not at all.) Like Westerners, not every Easterner is devout. Lots of Orthodox only see icons in church, when they happen to go there (for family events, etc.).

On balance, however, I am of the opinion that the Archbishop was far more in the wrong, and over far more substantial matters, than was Father Toth. That said, I should also state that the Archbishop's errors should in no way have permitted Father Toth to justify to himself his apostasy to the Church]

http://www.cin.org/clash13.htmlWhat St. Alexis was "wrong" about is not specified. What is was wrong on was placing false hope in the Vatican. Nothing more.

Fogey, I believe the current Byzantine Catholic Triodon follows that of the Slavic Orthodox, including the commemoration of St Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent. The old, pre war Typicons and Sluzebniks printed in L'viv, Presov or Ungvar did not. Deacon Lance can correct me if I am wrong.

And, to my chagrin, absent your tendency to the hyperbolic, I agree with much of what you say regarding SOME of the "major" theological distinctions between us which have been cemented by centuries of apologists, heated polemics, geopolitics etc.. but in the end just as location, location and location are the three key selling points for real estate, it is the problems presented by the papacy (universal jurisdiction), the papacy (infallibility) and the papacy (as the Vicar of Christ) which places us apart at the edge of a very narrow, yet very deep divide.

It doesn't hurt to talk though and to respect each other and to acknowledge the vastness of the Patristic tradition entrusted to our mutual care.

I agree! But Catholic defined doctrine is a non-negotiable just like the Trinity, only male priests and only male-female marriage. Catholics don't have to be ultramontane, something Greek Catholics should be teaching the Orthodox. But the OicwRs err in the other direction: 'Why My Reading of the Fathers Is Right and the Catholic Church Is Wrong.' At the end of the day it's mirror worship.

Wrong. Celibacy is NOT doctrine, only a discipline. If you disagree, then the Unions of Brest, Ungvar and the Anglican Ordinariate are heresies.

Please read more carefully. I wrote only MALE priests. I'm not some ignorant strawman Catholic who thinks celibacy's doctrine.

Wow. This coming from the guy who refers to Fr. Robert Taft as a "sophist"?"

But Catholic defined doctrine is a non-negotiable just like the Trinity, only male priests and only male-female marriage."

I don't follow you. Are you saying the pre-'Reformation' churches' unanimous opposition to the attempted ordination of women and to same-sex pseudo-marriage is wrong?

Of course not. But you wrote that, I did not. You placed " only male priests" in the same category of "Catholic defined doctrine" as the Trinity and sacramental marriage. How is one supposed to read that? It seems to me your intent there is clear and unambiguous. If you did not mean that, please correct yourself.

On balance, however, I am of the opinion that the Archbishop was far more in the wrong, and over far more substantial matters, than was Father Toth. That said, I should also state that the Archbishop's errors should in no way have permitted Father Toth to justify to himself his apostasy to the Church]

http://www.cin.org/clash13.htmlWhat St. Alexis was "wrong" about is not specified. What is was wrong on was placing false hope in the Vatican. Nothing more.

Though these are a definite minority within Byzantine Catholicism, St. Alexis’ icon hangs in many Byzantine Catholic home icon corners.

A definite minority all right. I'd bet you a pierogi platter that next to none of them have last names ending in -sky, -ko, or -uk.

Possibly. Nevertheless, I think I have more respect for those Catholics who have icons of him, than those Catholics who call his action "apostasy".

More Orthodox folks than Fogey would imagine regard Blessed John Paul 2 as a venerable for his fight against Soviet hegemony and many, including churches, have icons including 20th century martyrs like Blessed Pavel Goidich and Teodor Rhomza. Unlike the canonical rigidity of Romanism we try not to codify all things.

Except ex-Catholics such as Toth and those who were fervently anti-Catholic.

St Alexis was fervently pro-Catholic. Read the scroll.

On that note:

Quote

I still remember the first time I read about St. Alexis back about 1993. I had recently started attending a Byzantine Catholic parish and discovered a series of pages on the Catholic Information Network that covered some of the early history of the Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA. Even though I had no thought then of entering Orthodoxy, I immediately had a feeling of indignation upon reading of how he (and other Eastern Catholics) were treated by the Latin Rite Bishops and clergy during that era.

As I discussed his story with other Byzantine Catholics after St. Alexis’ glorification in 1994, I discovered that some Byzantine Catholics were sympathetic to him and a few even obtained icons of him. Though these are a definite minority within Byzantine Catholicism, St. Alexis’ icon hangs in many Byzantine Catholic home icon corners and I’ve been told his icon even graces a few Byzantine Catholic parishes (though usually where it is not easily seen). I’ve even heard him commemorated once at a Byzantine Catholic service of Great Vespers.

On balance, however, I am of the opinion that the Archbishop was far more in the wrong, and over far more substantial matters, than was Father Toth. That said, I should also state that the Archbishop's errors should in no way have permitted Father Toth to justify to himself his apostasy to the Church]

http://www.cin.org/clash13.htmlWhat St. Alexis was "wrong" about is not specified. What is was wrong on was placing false hope in the Vatican. Nothing more.

Like Westerners, not every Easterner is devout. Lots of Orthodox only see icons in church, when they happen to go there (for family events, etc.).

your point, or did you not have one?

I've known "Byzantines" who came from the home turf, and were devout enough to go to their "sui juris" parish every Sunday, and demand their children marry in, but their only icons, if they had them, was the kitchen calendar. I've know Orthodox from the "homecountries" who only went for family events, and were rather secular, but had plenty of icons around the house.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ditto Rome regarding the odd Melkite clergyman who preaches such relativistic nonsense (Catholicism's not the true church, I don't have to believe in post-schism Catholic doctrine).

That's where we get into "dual communion" type questions ...

P.S. On second thought, that response was fairly weak. It's more of "line item veto" question. I.e. does the pope have the right to say (for example) "I'll be in communion with the Melkite patriarchate, but not so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, ... "

But that only begs the question of whether everything in the Byzantine Rite is in agreement with Roman Catholic dogma. Among others the liturgical commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas is remarkable, since Palamism stands in opposition to Thomism and RC dogma.

In what way Palamism is different from, say, Papist's signature?

A real, ontological distinction between essence and energies. Such a thing is incompatible with RC doctine.

Fogey, what are your thoughts about how St. Gregory Palamas and Palamism are commemorated in the Byzantine Rite while a real and ontological distinction is anathematised by the Council of Vienne, which the Roman Catholics call the Fifteenth Ecumenical Council?

I think it's an Orthodox fanboy obsession most Catholics, including me, and most Orthodox don't give a rip about.

That the Catholic Church allows the Melkites to commemorate Palamas answers your question. As a born Orthodox he gets the benefit of the doubt. Much like how the EO/OO fight is now seen as a misunderstanding.

The Synodicon of Orthodoxy, which is part of the Byzantine Rite, condemns the adversaries of Palamism. The "Fifteenth Ecumenical Council" opposed Palamism. Don't you see the irony of the Byzantine Catholics and how they can impossibly be "Orthodox in worship, Catholic in faith". Lex orandi, lex credendi.

The councils that are commonly referred to (among Catholics) as Ecumenical Councils #9 through #16, were consistently called General Councils until the mid-16th century. I believe we should return to that practice.

But that only begs the question of whether everything in the Byzantine Rite is in agreement with Roman Catholic dogma. Among others the liturgical commemoration of St. Gregory Palamas is remarkable, since Palamism stands in opposition to Thomism and RC dogma.

In what way Palamism is different from, say, Papist's signature?

A real, ontological distinction between essence and energies. Such a thing is incompatible with RC doctrine.

I'm just a dumb papist but that fight seems like a convertodox fanboy fantasy. 'Essence vs. energies is wrong' said no ethnic American Orthodox layman ever.

What the (Ecumenical) Council of Vienne decreed seems to me to be a better source on Catholic doctrine than what Catholic Bob from 5th Avenue has to say.

Quite sad that you always try to dismiss my arguments by calling me 'convertodox' or other such terms when it is clear to everyone who read at least five of my posts that I am not in any way convertodox, hyperdox or whatever.

I think "convertodox" is a real problem (even if you personally aren't one of them).

I think the term "Greek Catholic" is silly. Almost none of the "Greek Catholic" Churches are ethnic Greek or even use Greek as the main language of the liturgy.

Is Roman or Latin Catholic silly? The Greek in Greek Catholic is refering to the Greek (Byzantine) Rite not ethnicity or language. This is the reason, however, Ruthenian Greek Catholics started using the name Byzantine Catholic.

Sorry for weighing in two months late but my father had a different understanding behind removing the label "Greek Catholic" from the Ruthenian Greek Catholic eparchy. First, no one identified as a Ruthenian, most folks erroneously referred to themselves as "Slavish" or Russian - those wouldn't do. More importantly, the legal claim asserted in a number of court cases that the term "Greek Catholic" was proprietary to the Pittsburgh Eparchy was not upheld in some property disputes, including four major ACROD congregations who retained their buildings, despite being chartered congregationally (a bishop was not the sole trustee)as Greek Catholic. These were St John in Ambridge, Pa, St. Michael in Rankin, Pa, St John in Perth Amboy, NJ and St Michael in Binghamton, NY. The final straw came around 1950 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the Eparchy's proprietary claim of the name Greek Catholic in a case involving the Eparchy' s cathedral in Munhall, PA (they retained the Church on other grounds) and the home parish of Andy Warhol, St. John Chrysostom in "Rus'ka Dolina" Pittsburgh. The change to BCC created a clear distinction between the Eastern Catholic parishes and the Orthodox in ACROD ( Carparltho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic) and the Metropolia ( Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic). Of course today most Acrod parishes id as "St.-----Orthodox" and pretty much all OCA id as solely Orthodox as well.

You have to remember the context of mid century America, in the "Rust Belt" neighborhoods, towns and villages typically had three and even four small congregations , all founded by blood relatives of the others, representing the various faiths, jurisdictions and - family disputes.

The lawsuits were certainly part of it, but greater in the mind of Archbishop Nicholas, who prescribed the change, was to de-ethnicize I think.

Fogey, I believe the current Byzantine Catholic Triodon follows that of the Slavic Orthodox, including the commemoration of St Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent. The old, pre war Typicons and Sluzebniks printed in L'viv, Presov or Ungvar did not. Deacon Lance can correct me if I am wrong.

Indeed, he was added back to the Anthologion and the Metropolitan Cantor Institute set his texts to our plain chant.

I think the term "Greek Catholic" is silly. Almost none of the "Greek Catholic" Churches are ethnic Greek or even use Greek as the main language of the liturgy.

Is Roman or Latin Catholic silly? The Greek in Greek Catholic is refering to the Greek (Byzantine) Rite not ethnicity or language. This is the reason, however, Ruthenian Greek Catholics started using the name Byzantine Catholic.

Sorry for weighing in two months late but my father had a different understanding behind removing the label "Greek Catholic" from the Ruthenian Greek Catholic eparchy. First, no one identified as a Ruthenian, most folks erroneously referred to themselves as "Slavish" or Russian - those wouldn't do. More importantly, the legal claim asserted in a number of court cases that the term "Greek Catholic" was proprietary to the Pittsburgh Eparchy was not upheld in some property disputes, including four major ACROD congregations who retained their buildings, despite being chartered congregationally (a bishop was not the sole trustee)as Greek Catholic. These were St John in Ambridge, Pa, St. Michael in Rankin, Pa, St John in Perth Amboy, NJ and St Michael in Binghamton, NY. The final straw came around 1950 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the Eparchy's proprietary claim of the name Greek Catholic in a case involving the Eparchy' s cathedral in Munhall, PA (they retained the Church on other grounds) and the home parish of Andy Warhol, St. John Chrysostom in "Rus'ka Dolina" Pittsburgh. The change to BCC created a clear distinction between the Eastern Catholic parishes and the Orthodox in ACROD ( Carparltho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic) and the Metropolia ( Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic). Of course today most Acrod parishes id as "St.-----Orthodox" and pretty much all OCA id as solely Orthodox as well.

You have to remember the context of mid century America, in the "Rust Belt" neighborhoods, towns and villages typically had three and even four small congregations , all founded by blood relatives of the others, representing the various faiths, jurisdictions and - family disputes.

The lawsuits were certainly part of it, but greater in the mind of Archbishop Nicholas, who prescribed the change, was to de-ethnicize I think.

I suspect you are correct. The Archbishop was driven, they say, to create a distinction between the murky Greek Catholic past and the new, clearly subject to the Pope, BCC. In the end Vatican 2 got in the way and Rome was no longer impressed. But I doubt this interests anyone here but you and me so we will have to discuss it over a few beers some day.

Fogey, I believe the current Byzantine Catholic Triodon follows that of the Slavic Orthodox, including the commemoration of St Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent. The old, pre war Typicons and Sluzebniks printed in L'viv, Presov or Ungvar did not. Deacon Lance can correct me if I am wrong.

Indeed, he was added back to the Anthologion and the Metropolitan Cantor Institute set his texts to our plain chant.

What was the Second Sunday of Lent before St. Gregory made his return among the Ruthenians?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Fogey, I believe the current Byzantine Catholic Triodon follows that of the Slavic Orthodox, including the commemoration of St Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent. The old, pre war Typicons and Sluzebniks printed in L'viv, Presov or Ungvar did not. Deacon Lance can correct me if I am wrong.

Indeed, he was added back to the Anthologion and the Metropolitan Cantor Institute set his texts to our plain chant.

What was the Second Sunday of Lent before St. Gregory made his return among the Ruthenians?

I'll dig out the old 1933 Slavonic Velikyj Zbornik in the morning and see if I remember enough to figure it out.

Fogey, I believe the current Byzantine Catholic Triodon follows that of the Slavic Orthodox, including the commemoration of St Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday of Lent. The old, pre war Typicons and Sluzebniks printed in L'viv, Presov or Ungvar did not. Deacon Lance can correct me if I am wrong.

Indeed, he was added back to the Anthologion and the Metropolitan Cantor Institute set his texts to our plain chant.

What was the Second Sunday of Lent before St. Gregory made his return among the Ruthenians?

No, St Polycarp has the feast day assigned in the calendar, but not a Sunday. Generally, we don't commemorate saints' days on Sundays (unless it's something big like SS Peter and Paul). During Great Lent, there are no saints' days commemorated on the weekdays, since the Liturgy cannot be celebrated, and so the rubrics allow for their celebration on the nearest Sunday if the nearest Saturday is not convenient for one or the other reason.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.